Staff Reports
The recent military action involving the double tap strike method against a vessel linked to drug trafficking has stirred up a whirlwind of debate. This method, which involves launching multiple missiles at the same target within a short period to ensure that combatants are effectively neutralized, has a long history in U.S. military operations. According to David Shed, a seasoned expert and former acting director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, it is not a new tactic. Rather, it has been part of the playbook for dealing with adversaries since the post-2001 era.
The incident on September 2 sparked confusion and contrasting opinions among lawmakers and intelligence officials who were briefed on it. The action aimed to strike a boat suspected of being involved in drug trafficking. Shed explained that after the initial hit, a second strike was deemed necessary because individuals aboard seemed poised to salvage the vessel and continue their operations. This quick decision was reinforced by the presence of legal advisors, grounding the action in real-time legal considerations concerning the ongoing threat posed by the individuals on board.
The discourse around this operation reveals a deeper, more complicated narrative. On one hand, there are lawmakers like Congressman Jim Hines, who expressed sympathy for the individuals involved, suggesting that they were victims of circumstance rather than hardened criminals. He painted a picture of two frightened men clinging to wreckage, their pursuers oblivious to their plight. Meanwhile, Senator Tom Cotton posited a strikingly different view, characterizing the same men as combatants intent on re-engaging in illegal activities.
This stark contrast in perspectives highlights a critical question: what constitutes a foreign terrorist organization? For Shed and others, if a group of individuals presents a clear and immediate threat to national security, they can be classified under the legal frameworks that allow for aggressive action. Rick Crawford, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, reinforced this viewpoint by asserting that these drug traffickers pose a significant threat, one that arguably surpasses that of groups like ISIS.
As the conversation continues, it’s clear that this military response has broader implications, not only for national security but also for how the U.S. defines its adversaries in the context of modern warfare. In a world where drug trafficking has evolved into a ruthless and dangerous business, the lines defining combatants blur. The contentious nature of this topic serves as a reminder of the multifaceted challenges faced by U.S. law enforcement and military operations in dealing with threats that have both national and global ramifications.
Although the double tap strike has been the subject of much debate and concern, it ultimately reflects a commitment to addressing the threats posed by drug cartels and other nefarious groups that seek to undermine the safety and security of the United States. With intense scrutiny from both sides of the political spectrum, this incident is likely to be a focal point for future discussions on military strategy and national security policy.
